[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55759-55763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20898]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[MD001-1001a; FRL-7813-6]
Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Maryland Equivalency by Permit Provisions; NESHAP for
Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a request from the Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE) for authority to implement and enforce state
permit terms and conditions in place of those of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Recovery
Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone
Semichemical Pulp Mills, with respect to the operations of MeadWestvaco
Company's Luke Mill, located in Luke, Maryland. Thus, the EPA is hereby
granting the MDE the authority to implement and enforce alternative
requirements in the form of Clean Air Act (CAA) Title V permit terms
and conditions after EPA has approved the State's alternative
requirements. EPA is approving this request because it has found that
the MDE has satisfied the requirements.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 15, 2004 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 7, 2004.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by MD001-1001, by one of
the following methods:
[[Page 55760]]
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
B. E-mail: [email protected].
C. Mail: David J. Campbell, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment
Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. MD001-1001.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Copies of all comments should also be sent to the Maryland
Department of the Environment. Copies of written comments should be
sent to Thomas C. Snyder, Director, Air and Radiation Management
Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington
Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Copies of electronic comments
should be sent to [email protected]. Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paresh R. Pandya, (215) 814-2167, or
by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates NESHAP for various
categories of air pollution sources. On January 12, 2001, EPA
promulgated a NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft,
Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills, as codified at
40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, Sec. Sec. 63.860 through 63.868. (See, 66
FR 3193.) MeadWestvaco Company operates a pulp and paper mill called
the Luke Mill, located in Luke, Maryland which is subject to the
requirements of this NESHAP.
Under section 112(l) of the CAA, EPA may approve State or local
rules or programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain
otherwise applicable Federally promulgated CAA section 112 rules,
emission standards, or requirements. EPA's approval of State and local
rules or programs under section 112(l) is governed by regulations found
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. (See, 65 FR 55810, dated September 14,
2000). Under the provisions of subpart E found at 40 CFR 63.94, a State
or local air pollution control agency may seek approval, for affected
sources permitted by the State or local agency under a CAA Title V
permitting program developed pursuant to the EPA regulations found at
40 CFR part 70, of State or local CAA Title V permit terms and
conditions to be implemented and enforced in lieu of specified existing
and future Federal CAA section 112 rules, emissions standards, or
requirements. This option is referred to as the equivalency by permit
(EBP) option. To receive EPA approval using this option, the State or
local agency must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.94.
Approval of alternative requirements under the EBP process
comprises three steps. The first step is EPA granting ``up-front
approval'' of a State's EBP program. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(a) and (b).)
The second step is EPA review and approval of the State's proposed
alternative CAA section 112 requirements in the form of pre-draft
permit terms and conditions. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(c) and (d).) The third
step is incorporation of the approved pre-draft permit terms and
conditions into a specific CAA Title V permit and the CAA Title V
permit issuance process itself. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(e).)
The first step, obtaining EPA's ``up-front approval'' of a State's
EBP program, enables EPA to ensure that: (1) A State meets the criteria
at 40 CFR 63.91(d) for up-front approval common to all approval
options; (2) a legal foundation exists for a State to replace the
otherwise applicable Federal section 112 requirements with alternative,
Federally enforceable requirements that will be reflected in final CAA
Title V permit terms and conditions; and, (3) the specific source(s)
and Federal emission standard(s) for which a State will be accepting
delegation under the EBP program are clearly specified.
The second step, having EPA review and approve the State's
alternative CAA section 112 requirements, provides EPA with an
opportunity to ensure that the State's proposed pre-draft CAA Title V
permit terms and conditions reflect all of the requirements of the
otherwise applicable Federal requirements and are equivalent to those
requirements. The approval criteria used by EPA are set forth at 40 CFR
63.94(d). If the EPA finds that the pre-draft CAA Title V permit terms
and conditions submitted by the State meet the criteria of paragraph
(d), EPA approves the State's alternative requirements (by approving
the pre-draft permit terms and conditions) and notifies the State in
writing of the approval.
The third step, requiring incorporation of the approved pre-draft
permit terms and conditions into a specific CAA Title V permit and the
CAA Title V permit issuance process itself, serves to make the
requirements legally effective. EPA's final approval of the State's
proposed alternative requirements that substitute for the Federal
standard does not occur until the completion of step three.
On March 26, 2004 (as amended on July 8, 2004) the MDE requested
delegation of authority to implement and enforce State CAA Title V
permit terms and requirements for MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill as
an alternative to those of the NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion
Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp
Mills, found at 40 CFR, part 63, subpart MM. The MDE states in its
request that it intends for the submittal to fulfill only the
requirements of step one of the EBP process, pertaining to obtaining
``up-front approval'' of its program. The MDE explains that it will
later fulfill steps
[[Page 55761]]
two and three of the EBP process by submitting substitute CAA Title V
operating permit terms and conditions for EPA review and approval, and
then proceeding with the CAA Title V permit issuance process. The MDE
sought this authority pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.94 and
63.91, and the MDE submitted information addressing the requirements of
those sections.
II. Analysis of State's Submittal
EPA has reviewed the MDE's submittal and has concluded that the MDE
meets the requirements for ``up-front approval'' of its EBP program
which are specified at 40 CFR 63.94(b) and 63.91(d). The requirements a
State or local agency must meet can be summarized as follows: (1)
Identify the source(s) for which the State seeks authority to implement
and enforce alternative requirements; (2) request delegation (or have
delegation) for any remaining sources required to be permitted by the
State under 40 CFR part 70 that are in the same category as the
source(s) for which it wishes to establish alternative requirements;
(3) identify all existing and future CAA section 112 emission standards
for which the State is seeking authority to implement and enforce
alternative requirements; (4) demonstrate that the State has an
approved CAA Title V operating permits program that permits the
affected sources; and, (5) demonstrate that the State meets the general
approval criteria set forth at 40 CFR 63.91(d).
EPA lists each requirement below and after each requirement
explains its reasons for concluding that the MDE meets the requirement:
A. Identify the Source(s) for Which the State Is Seeking Authority To
Implement and Enforce Alternative Requirements
The MDE identified MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill, a pulp and
paper mill located in Luke, Maryland, as the source for which it is
seeking authority to implement and enforce alternative requirements.
According to the MDE, MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill is the only
operating pulp and paper mill in Maryland subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MM. MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill is situated on the border
of both Maryland and West Virginia. The portion of the Luke mill that
is located in West Virginia is also subject to the requirements of 40
CFR part 63, subpart MM. However, this Direct Final Rule does not grant
Maryland or West Virginia the authority to implement the EBP process in
West Virginia. For this Direct Final Rule, the EBP process will only
apply to MeadWestvaco's Luke Mill units that are subject to subpart MM
and located in Maryland only.
B. Request or Have Delegation for any Remaining Sources Required To Be
Issued CAA Title V Permits by the State and That Are in the Same
Category as the Source(s) for Which it Seeks To Establish Alternative
Requirements
The MDE is currently delegated the authority to implement and
enforce the Federal requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM for
Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills. Subpart MM applies to ``the owner
or operator of each Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, or Stand-Alone Semichemical
Pulp Mill that is a major source of hazardous air pollutants * * *''
(See, 40 CFR 63.860). On November 3, 1999, EPA delegated to the MDE the
authority to implement and enforce EPA's NESHAP standards for affected
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as defined in 40 CFR part
63, for all source categories which are located at major sources. EPA
also delegated to the MDE the authority to implement and enforce all
future EPA NESHAP standards applicable to such sources, on the
condition that the MDE legally adopt such new standards with only
approved wording changes and that the MDE provide notice to EPA of such
adoption. The MDE subsequently adopted additional MACT standards which
became effective on November 24, 2003. In a letter dated January 13,
2004, MDE notified EPA that they had adopted these additional MACT
standards. The additional standards that the State adopted included 40
CFR part 63, subpart MM.
C. Identify All Existing and Future Federal Section 112 Rules for Which
the State Is Seeking Authority To Implement and Enforce Alternative
Requirements
In its March 26, 2004 (as amended on July 8, 2004) submittal, the
MDE requested only the authority to implement and enforce State permit
requirements for MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill as alternatives to
the Federal requirements applicable to that Mill found at 40 CFR part
63, subpart MM. The MDE confirmed that there are no other existing and
future Federal CAA section 112 rules for which the State is seeking
authority to implement and enforce alternative requirements.
D. Demonstrate That the State has an Approved CAA Title V Permits
Program and That the Program Permits the Affected Source(s)
EPA granted final full approval to Maryland's CAA Title V operating
permits program on February 14, 2003 (68 FR 1974), and under this
approved program the MDE has the authority to issue CAA Title V permits
to all major stationary sources. In its March 26, 2004 (as amended on
July 8, 2004) submittal, the MDE confirmed that MeadWestvaco Company's
Luke Mill is a CAA Title V source and that it is subject to the State's
CAA Title V permits program. The MDE noted the MeadWestvaco Company had
submitted a CAA Title V permit application, and that the MDE was
reviewing this application.
E. Demonstrate That the State Meets the General Approval Criteria Found
at 40 CFR 63.91(d)
The provisions of 40 CFR 63.91(d) specify that ``Interim or final
CAA Title V program approval will satisfy the criteria set forth in
Sec. 63.91(d), up-front approval criteria.'' As discussed in item D.
above, EPA has fully approved Maryland's CAA Title V operating permits
program.
III. Final Action
EPA is granting the MDE ``up-front'' approval of an EBP program
under which the MDE may establish and enforce alternative State
requirements for MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill in lieu of those of
the NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda,
Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills, found at 40 CFR part
63, subpart MM. The MDE may only establish alternative requirements for
the Luke Mill which are equivalent to and at least as stringent as the
otherwise applicable Federal requirements. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(d).) The
MDE must, in order to establish alternative requirements for the Luke
Mill under its EPA approved EBP program: (1) Submit to EPA for review
pre-draft CAA Title V permit terms specifying alternative requirements
which are at least as stringent as the otherwise applicable Federal
requirements, (2) obtain EPA's written approval of the alternative pre-
draft CAA Title V permit requirements, and (3) issue a CAA Title V
permit for the Luke Mill which contains the approved alternative
requirements. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(c) and (e).) Until EPA has approved
the alternative permit terms and conditions and the MDE has issued a
final CAA Title V permit incorporating them, MeadWestvaco Company's
Luke
[[Page 55762]]
Mill will remain subject to the Federal NESHAP requirements found at 40
CFR part 63, subpart MM.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposal to approve if adverse comments are filed. This rule
will be effective on November 15, 2004 without further notice unless
EPA receives adverse comment by October 7, 2004. If EPA receives
adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on
the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.
EPA's role in reviewing this submittal is to approve a State
request for authority to establish State permit terms and conditions to
be implemented and enforced in lieu of specified existing and future
Federal rules, emissions standards or requirements promulgated under
CAA section 112, for those affected sources permitted by the State
under a program meeting the requirements of CAA part 70, provided that
the request meets the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement for a State to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State's
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, in reviewing this submission, to use VCS in
place of a State submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not
apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-
specific requirements for MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill located in
Luke, Maryland.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 15, 2004. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action granting the MDE ``up-front'' approval of
an EBP program under which the MDE may establish and enforce
alternative State requirements for MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill in
lieu of those of the NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at
Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills found at
40 CFR part 63, subpart MM may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Paper and paper products industry, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 7, 2004.
Donald S Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart E--Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal
Authorities
0
2. Section 63.99 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(20)(iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.
(a) * * *
(20) * * *
[[Page 55763]]
(iii) EPA has granted the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) ``up-front'' approval to implement an Equivalency by Permit (EBP)
program under which the MDE may establish and enforce alternative State
requirements for MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill in lieu of those of
the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MM. The MDE may only establish alternative requirements for the Luke
Mill which are equivalent to and at least as stringent as the otherwise
applicable Federal requirements. The MDE must, in order to establish
alternative requirements for the Luke Mill under its EPA approved EBP
program: submit to EPA for review pre-draft Clean Air Act (CAA) Title V
permit terms specifying alternative requirements which are at least as
stringent as the otherwise applicable Federal requirements, obtain
EPA's written approval of the alternative pre-draft CAA Title V permit
requirements, and issue a CAA Title V permit for the Luke Mill which
contains the approved alternative requirements. Until EPA has approved
the alternative permit terms and conditions and the MDE has issued a
final CAA Title V permit incorporating them, MeadWestvaco Company's
Luke Mill will remain subject to the Federal NESHAP requirements found
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-20898 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P